soundoff(253 Responses)

The American forefathers dreamed about the Davidic Kingdom and their idiotic secular descendants crushed it, as usual.

September 7, 2011 at 1:11 am |

Reality

And on and on goes the inane comments by Carla, the red-neck Chrisitan lady of many names!!!

September 7, 2011 at 7:17 am |

Uncouth Swain

Carla..if that were true then they would never had imposed a Republic form of govt on us.

September 7, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

Glepe

No.

September 7, 2011 at 1:05 am |

Brian

"That statement doesn't square with reality.. Not all Christians/Jews endorse those positions, "....................

That's because most Christians don't understand their own religion. Evangelism is built into the Christian religion.

September 7, 2011 at 12:48 am |

RightTurnClyde

I do not regard the Bible as a history book (and history was very limited right up to the late Roman empire). I do not regard the Bible as the "word of God" although I do think it was inspired by God. I think most of what is said in the Bible (especially the New Testament) happened .. but kind oi f like an eye witness report on a local network. Well we all listen to local news (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN ETC) but we know they are not a history book either. I do read the Bible for courage and patience and perspective and wisdom. I do regard it a powerful source book .. virtue. It is not essential hat David existed in a certain way for us to be Christians (but believe Kings I and II) I believe the writings

September 7, 2011 at 12:06 am |

jimtanker

I think, I think, I think.... but there seems to be very little CRITICAL thinking going on.

September 7, 2011 at 12:49 am |

Clew

Inspired by "God"?
With all the excellent arguments against the existence of any god you still remain a believer?
I think you should change your name to "CluelessClod", you clueless clod.

September 7, 2011 at 9:17 am |

Reality

"However, Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Archaeology Faculty at the University of Tel Aviv, asserts that there is no evidence in the archaeological record that Israel was a powerful force, whether at the time of the stele's creation or at any other time during that general period. In his article "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho", appearing in Ha'aretz (29 October 1999), he calls the mention of Israel on the stele a reference to a "population group" writing:

"The term "Israel" was given to one of the population groups that resided in Canaan toward the end of the Late Bronze Age, apparently in the central hill region, in the area where the Kingdom of Israel would later be established..."[21

September 6, 2011 at 11:29 pm |

Bo

==========@Reallityfirstpost=============== You've made this post before, I'm not interested in debating the issue, but what reason is there for not believing that Abraham never existed, or that Moses ever led the Israelites out of Egypt?

September 6, 2011 at 11:16 pm |

Colin

Quite simple, there is no ex-Biblical evidence for either of them. The only source that supports their existence is the Bible – and let's face it,relying on that pile of discredited garbage is like relying on the memoirs of a committed Branch Davidian to get a picture of the life of David Koresh.

September 6, 2011 at 11:20 pm |

Answer

Bo,

People of those names might have existed .. lived out their lives. To associate their stories of parting the sea and such miracles. That's your bit. Explain the miracles. That's the sole reason we have questions.

Belief in one hand that it was an accurate sighting then recorded. It is a rehash ideology of words saying they believed it. That it was a miracle that they could not explain – whereas nowadays were familiar with the illusions that appeared to have been miracles.

Still not realizing the point of the argument that it is the question of the miracles is all is being asked. Can you definitely recreate the miracles based on your faith. The proof is then thrust onto you to support your miracles. Simple as that in a nutshell.

September 7, 2011 at 12:55 am |

herbert juarez

no evidence for Abraham except the Jewish people
no evidence for Moses except the worlds system of law
no evidence for Abraham except the nation of Israel
no evidence for Moses except Israel is geographically where it is supposed to be
no evidence for Abraham except Machpelah

September 7, 2011 at 6:04 am |

John Richardson

Someone like Abraham, who lived a fairly parochial life, may have flown under the radar of historical scribes of other people. But Moses is said to have led a major, successful rebellion against the world's then greatest power. The silence about him in either Egyptian annals or those of their enemies is deafening. Also, there is no evidence of Jewish encampments in the Sinai, but much evidence for very early Jewish settlements scattered among Canaanite settlements in Canaan, aka Palestine or Israel. The combination of existing evidence for Jews in places other than Egypt during the relevant time period and lack of evidence of any great uprising in Egypt or lengthy stay in the Sinai strongly suggests that the Exodus story is a fabrication.

September 7, 2011 at 7:23 am |

Uncouth Swain

@Bo- Unlike what some of the commentators might imply...no evidence is not evidence to the contrary. Just because there is no known evidence outside of the Bible does not instantly mean the opposite. Look at such ppl like King Tutankamun. He ruled one of the great powers of his day and very little was known about him up until his tomb was unearthed.
If the same mentality that some on here existed back in the 1910's..they would have called Tutankamun a myth because so little reliable info existed.
Now John is correct that archaeology does not quite support the concepts a massive exodus that left Egypt for what we now refer to as Israel. There was of course, exoduses back and forth from the Levant to Egypt in the ancient days. One can look for even those in the book of Genesis with Abraham going to Egypt or Jacob and his family.
One might caution though about no archaeological evidence at Sinai...because science has yet to say exactly what mountain was Sinai.

September 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

John Richardson

It is fair to say that there is a lot of reason to believe that there was a lot of wandering of peoples all over the Middle East throughout the ages, just as there has been everywhere else on the globe. Settlements as we know them didn't even exist until neolithic times, ie after tens if not hundreds of thousands of years of human history. And while nomadic hunter gatherers and later nomadic pastoralists tended to roam within a given area, those areas tended to be huge and populated by more than one nomadic group, often quite a few, none of whom had a reasonable claim of sole ownership of the entire land area. The whole "promised land" myth was probably a myth ABOUT the change from a mostly wandering to a mostly settled condition, but we are still paying the price of people reading deep, eternal cosmic truths into mere myths.

September 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

Uncouth Swain

There are differences though in the pastoral wanderings and those that were directed due to famine. The travels to Egypt and the reasons for them listed for Abraham and Jacob's family fit well in history.
As with the accounts of the EXODUS...one can see a mix of history and myth mixed in. One should keep in mind that "myth" does not always equate as never happening. Many times it just means there isn't enough evidence one way or another.
What can be said is that Egypt did control a vast amount of land that extended into what we now call Israel. There is no doubt that those who later become the Kindom of Israel and Judah were influenced by Egypt and felt their power. As Egypt's power waned, Israel, Judah and the other small nations around there grew in power.
Just look at the various prophets like Jeremiah, Micah and Habbakuk. You can see the politics of the world powers pushing on Israel and Judah quite a bit. The Bible/Tanakh is not all perfectly true...and it not perfectly false.

September 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

John Richardson

@Uncouth Which brings up an intriguing possibility: An Egyptian "power exodus" from Canaan, leaving a power vacuum that eventually led to a war between two of the main more or less "indigenous" groups, ie the Jews and the Canaanites, not unlike what happened in the former Yugoslavia once the communist regime that united the people by force fell. There could easily have been an orally transmitted a folk memory of being under much more direct Egyptian control, that ending and leading to a period of uncertainty and then a war of extermination against the Canaanites that later generations that grew up thinking of Egypt as "over there" and not "right here" garbled into a story of the Jews physically leaving Egypt. Just speculation, but not totally unbelievable, eh?

September 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

Uncouth Swain

Possible..though an actual leaving from Egypt would not be out of the question. Consider what the Bible says about the Pharoah during the time of Moses birth. He did not know of Joseph. It has been theorized that the ruling group (Hyksos) during the timeframe including Joseph could have been Semetic like Joseph and his family. This could explain in part how Joseph was able to move up the social ladder.
By the time the Hyksos had lost their power, the native Egyptians might have been quite upset with anyone Semetic. This could explain why a Semeitc group like the Hebrews would have wanted to leave and move north.

September 7, 2011 at 6:33 pm |

John Richardson

@Uncouth Quite an intriguing possibility. Have you ever read Freud's Moses and Monotheism? Unabashedly speculative (though Freud tends to be rather self assured in his speculations, of course, or at least puts on such airs), but quite a fascinating but of speculation well worth a read.

September 8, 2011 at 10:20 am |

Uncouth Swain

No, I haven't read it but maybe I can pick it up somewhere.
Lol, Freud was quite sure of himself on many things.

September 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

Colin

In other news, a rabbit hole discovered in the Negev desert has Jewish scholars pondering...is this the Easter Bunny?

September 6, 2011 at 10:52 pm |

Uncouth Swain

Why make fun of archaeologists?

September 7, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

John Richardson

@Colin Prove that it isn't!!!! :-D

September 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

J.W

I say Colin should have to go down into that hole and search every inch of it just to prove that the Easter Bunny is not there.

September 8, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

NoShariainUS

I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslims tried to destroy the ruins. They built a mosque on top of Israel's holiest site, and have being destroying archeological evidence of David's temple under the Mosque. Crazy...

September 6, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

ralph maccio

Did you know muslims believe in King David??? He is one of the greatest prophets and kings.

September 6, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

Mohammy Salamy

They want NO Evidence of the Jewish Temple to survive. They believe that they are the chosen people of God and the heir of the promise of Abraham, that the Jews fell out of favor with God and they need to be destroyed before the end can come.

September 6, 2011 at 10:57 pm |

claybigsby

"They believe that they are the chosen people of God "

sounds like every religion

September 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

Chad

Why are atheists so angry at Christianity and Judaism? They seem to generally disagree with Islam on general principals just because its "a religion", but I dont see the name calling and the venom. They dont see to get at all worked up about Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc..?

why?

September 6, 2011 at 9:12 pm |

USmellLikePee

Being "angry at Christianity and Judaism" is like being angry at "The Three Little Pigs". I don't particularly care whether Jews want to bob like demented idiots against a wall or if Christians want to kneel down and pray to their Bronze Age god. Where I object is when you try to impose your views on me. You don't do so directly, but you do so indirectly, by influencing public policy.

In each of the above issues, public policy is set, by and large, by the Judeo-Christian belief in the supposed wishes of some hokey, Bronze Age sky fairy which, for some reason, you seem intellectually and/or emotionally, incapable of shedding.

September 6, 2011 at 9:35 pm |

Chad

That statement doesn't square with reality.. Not all Christians/Jews endorse those positions, and not all people that support those positions are Christian/Jew.

As well, are you arguing that if I do in fact consider abortion murder, that I should not be allowed to lobby my position? That would be pretty intolerant.

September 6, 2011 at 9:51 pm |

Colin

Chad – I have no problem with lobbying efforts based on rational arguments. To take the example you cite, there is a valid basis for arguing against abortion. I may disaree with the position many Christians tend to take, but I do not consider their position unreasonable.

What I object to is where there is no competing interest to be weighed. Of the 10 examples he gave, however, nine of them have no third party interest pushing back. It is simply the religious trying to tell us all what we should do based on the supposed wishes of their silly sky-god.

September 6, 2011 at 9:59 pm |

PRISM 1234

@ USmell...
What do YOU think our society is going to be like when all Judeo-Christian principles ar thrown out and replaced by the "do what you will shall be the whole of the law" ones?

September 6, 2011 at 10:03 pm |

Chad

@Colin: so you're saying that you only support my right to an opposing viewpoint if you can see some basis for it..

If I hold a viewpoint, why do I have to establish a basis with you (or in general with people that disagree with it) in order to lobby for it. That would give you veto power on my positions. That's incredibly intolerant.

September 6, 2011 at 10:14 pm |

Answer

Once again Chad makes a move to label what he sees as anger. Still too attached to his dogma that atheist are an emotional mess. All the while holding the candle of tolerance and righteousness.

Well Chad you're wrong, like all your other relicons before you. Why are you so afraid of atheists stating their points of logic?
Does it threaten your paper thin veneer of calm and serenity that you want to project? Religion has no rights to impose any of their pathetic doctrines -period! Not on abortion and not on so many other subjects of contention. It certainly has no rights to demand that religious view are a mandate to be adhere to and pass down into laws.

You just don't get it that regardless of your religious condemnation of any person, a person is only subject to his or her own choice.

September 6, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

Answer

Chad, do you understand the real difference in religious laws versus the laws handled and passed by the populace?

You religious laws are – the views – of a religion. From the standpoint of a particular religion. Think of the mess if every religion wanted to glue their views alongside 'the laws of man'. Whose laws trumps whose viewpoint and to what degree?
So when you push your views and claim you're doing God's work, you just want to believe it. Fact is God has nothing to do with it in the first place.

September 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm |

fred

Answer
To the extent there is a God(something acting upon nothingness) it is mans laws that have no relevance. The issue becomes do we or should we know these laws. Through empirical observation the answer is yes. We have the 10 commandments set in stone some 3,500 years that are still the foundation of modern law. Thou salt not kill goes back 10,000+ years and trust God and obey goes back to beginning of man in the cradle of civilization. The basic theme or as some would say the spirit of the law not he letter of the law goes back to the beginning of the universe. Something created, light and darkness separated, good vs bad, God reveals Himself as that something, man rejects God then finally something big happens again.

September 6, 2011 at 11:44 pm |

Answer

@fred

So you say that the 10 commandments are once again – the same rhetoric. Came from your sky fairy.
Ya ya. The burden of proof. The burden of proof. The burden of proof.

September 6, 2011 at 11:57 pm |

Answer

Face it everyone – we're not as knowledgeable as we all want to be. We want to learn. It is necessary to learn.

We can spout opinions all day long. The burden of proof always has to be tested.
@Fred, you have stated your opinion and is absolutely convinced of that 10,000 plus years. Ya ok. It came from your bible.
That worthless piece of garbage that gets used more than a two bit wh- and you want me to believe you. Well I don't.

So what is the criteria once again? Burden of proof. If you have convinced yourself – how did you come to realize it? With what proof did you offer yourself to your own mind to draw the absolute definitive answer that God existed?

You see when I think to the very beginning of time. We all use our imagination and can all resolve to the picture of oblivion or nothingness. That is truth. So there is only two matter of fact of OPINION on how the universe formed. That is truth.

Hand of God – you chose this conclusion. I chose the nothingness of self creation – into our universe. Then time passed into the billions of years and we evolved. I go by the tenants of proof. I can relate to time because time is always there. God – no, God can not exist without time. God being there beforehand to create a universe is illogical. The question revolving in my mind is the same as every one else who holds true with mine. What created that God?

The difference is only of opinions. The fundamental laws – we humans can use our developed senses to make ourselves aware that there are laws. The laws that you suggest – written into stone – suck with retardation on more than one level of logic. Thus I reject your fallacy – my opinion. So what is your proof on why you are convinced on those laws as in fact deity/god sent?

September 7, 2011 at 12:11 am |

fred

Answer,
My proof is that perfect order does not come from chaos on its own. The probabilities against this happening are astronomical. You are believing in a miraculous spontaneous occurrence to justify the existence of life that most mathematicians will tell you is objectively an impossibility.
As to divine law what man would come up with the idea to love God as a prerequisite. When Stalin set up camp it was the State and self that was to be loved and worshiped. That is the difference man is selfish, prideful and greedy. Laws are set up for themselves first and foremost.
Divine law looks outside of mans self interest and points upward in appreciation, love and worship of the highest good. That is the very foundation from which all other goodness would flow.

September 7, 2011 at 2:41 am |

herbert juarez

another reason to discount colins viewpoint
colin has been proven a repeated liar.

September 7, 2011 at 6:06 am |

John Richardson

What evidence does anyone have that a prohibition against killing other humans began just 3500 or so years ago with Moses and the 10 commandments? That's simply ludicrous.

September 7, 2011 at 7:29 am |

Kosmolov

fred, you obviously do not understand the concepts of order and chaos in the first place.
1. There is no order.
2. There is no chaos.

There. Fixed it for ya. Your simplistic interpretation of the universe around you is really not much better than that of the primitive goat-herders of biblical times. Your brain seeks patterns and will even assume patterns where there are none.
Then you ascribe these "patterns" to your "catch-all" concept of the "supernatural" when there is nothing supernatural about anything natural in the first place.
That's how religions get started.
Ignorance in the face of whatever is unknown leads the uneducated to ascribe what doesn't exist to what is not understood. There is no order and no chaos, there is just dimensional energy.
There is no "design", there is just a mishmash of dimensional energy states. Your god does not exist.

September 7, 2011 at 9:38 am |

Northwoods

I suspect that its because Christians, Jews and Muslims believe they have the one true God and as a believer they are better than anyone else and non- believers are lesser humans. Hinduism has many different Gods and Shintoism and Taoism are more philosophies than a religion that people kill one another over. Israel's fundamentalists view themselves as a "master race".

September 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

PRISM 1234

LOL! ......"Ya ya. The burden of proof. The burden of proof. The burden of proof" parroting on the blogs.... But you've got it, yet you don't see it! You've got it even in your own conscience, which you've silenced and cause it to die within you... It is (human's pride and love of sin that's in his heart that blinds him to the point he can't see further from his own nose. You keep saying "religion is a crutch"... Indeed, most of them are, yet more like a rope the blind hold on too, following one another. But Revelation of God through Yeshua, the Messiah, the Son of God whom HE sent to declare, explain Him, and reveal Himself thru Him, it is NOT religion. It's reality, its the TRUTH that stands above any man's opinion. But these who are proud, in t eh arrogance of their own self will, have caused their own hearts to be darkened and bared from recognizing Him. HE came into this world as a humble baby, to poor, peasant parents, but God has ordained it that way, so that only those who truly sought Him recognized Him who He was. The same is today. The proud, and arrogant don't recognize Him... the humble and those of broken spirit, who know their own poverty, recognizing their need of Him, they are the ones who DO RECOGNIZE HIM..... God does not flaunt His glory in front of/to fools, nor does He prove Himself to those who demand it of Him.
He wants those who come to Him to do so because they long to know Him, and desire His righteousness in their hearts. GOD DOES NOT WANT FALSE CONVERTS, REMEMBER THAT , PEOPLE! ! ! He knows what is in human heart, and it is according to His knowledge of human heart, that He deals with humanity!

But nevertheless, those who by pride and love of sin that's in their hearts refuse to acknowledge Him, He WILL prove Himself, and they WILL KNOW. But it will be on His terms, and on His timetable, because He is the LORD, and He takes no commands from rebellious, proud,self absorbed, spoiled, humans! That's NOT in His nature!
And that's just the way it is!

September 7, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Israel's fundamentalists view themselves as a "master race"."

Where do you get this crap? Btw, it might interest you to know that Israel is quite a secular nation. I would dare say it is the most secular nation in all the Middle East.

September 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

Answer

@Hesalive

One question for all your stupid Jesus talk and support..

Could you ever imagine that God is not male?Perhaps female? Tell me why – your answer.

September 6, 2011 at 8:49 pm |

Hesalive

Christianity in two words: He's alive.

September 6, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

John Richardson

Reality in two words: He's dead

September 6, 2011 at 8:16 pm |

Scott Owl

Religion = utter bullsh-t
There's two words for you.

September 6, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Hesalive- This is a topic on archaeology. The status of Jesus's corporeal nature canniot be shown through archaeological means at this time.

September 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm |

*frank*

He's dead, Jim...

September 6, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

Andy Breeden

We won't know for sure until after the autopsy.

September 6, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

Kyle

Actually, he's dead:

People of faith foolishly believe that finding a biblical site somehow validates that their religion is real. That is an insight as to how frail people's faiths really are. In other words, they know deep down that something with all religion is wrong, but they're holding onto it by a thread.

Christians. How many of you still believe that jesus is going to return? I don't mean to be a stickler, but you're all holding your breath for nothing.

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." –Mark 9:1 (KJV)

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." –Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." –Matthew 10:23 (NIV)

You see what that is? It's jesus telling people that he's going to return in a very short time. In fact, he was supposed to return before some of his followers died as he himself stated. In case you're missing the boat here... some of the followers jesus was addressing were supposed to see jesus die, and then before their deaths, jesus would return. He never did.

Digging up religious sites proves nothing other than that people back then also believed in myths and that human evolution hasn't changed much over the past 2000 years.

September 6, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

Kyle

And yes. That's a copy and paste from another post I made. Complain all you'd like. Jesus is not coming back.

September 6, 2011 at 8:29 pm |

Uncouth Swain

What I find funny about you Kyle is that you are the same type of person that would one minute say Jesus never existed it if supported your opinions....but then say Jesus is dead because it supports another one of your opinions.

September 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm |

Answer

@Kyle

No matter how many facts you put forth to them, they'll deny it.
It's their lifestyle.

Religion in all it's interpretations are all male dominated – centric. Never do they really ask themselves – why?
Could it not ever occur to them that maybe it's a Goddess.
It always leads back to denial. "I could never accept a female god" – i wonder why? I've run across a few converts that have actually said this to me by the way. They couldn't fanthom a female god. See this is why I don't give a crap about religion. Those that always refer you back to "read their bible" are all full of idiocy. Rehash all their rhetoric time and time again.

~What facts? He gave a theological opinion. He is welcome to it but it is hardly unique or better than anyone else's opinion.

"Religion in all it's interpretations are all male dominated – centric."

~Guess you ignored all the Esthers, Ruths, Mary's..etc of the Torah and Bible. But I will admit that the cutlures within the texts were aimed toward a male organized society. What of it?

"Never do they really ask themselves – why?"

~Well...that is a false statement.

"Could it not ever occur to them that maybe it's a Goddess."

~And if they did...what of it?

"It always leads back to denial. "I could never accept a female god" – i wonder why?"

~Leading the witness prosecutor?

"I've run across a few converts that have actually said this to me by the way. They couldn't fanthom a female god. See this is why I don't give a crap about religion. Those that always refer you back to "read their bible" are all full of idiocy. Rehash all their rhetoric time and time again."

~I would suggest your do a reference study on Shekhinah and the gender attributed to it.

"Poor fools."

~Are you the pot or kettle?

September 6, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

Chad

Indeed, HE IS RISEN!

amazing, but true.

September 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

tallulah13

And Santa Claus travels all around the world on Christmas eve, pulled in his sleigh by magic flying reindeer, giving gifts that were made by elves at the North Pole to good little boys and girls. It must be true, because I have exactly the same amount of proof as you do.

September 6, 2011 at 11:22 pm |

JL

I like how swain didn't address the verses that Kyle pointed out.

September 7, 2011 at 12:36 am |

Uncouth Swain

"I like how swain didn't address the verses that Kyle pointed out."

I did JL..I said there are others that would come to different theological answers to those verses. Plz pay attention if you are able.

September 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

claybigsby

see Uncouth Swain......the best way to divert the topic/questions ask is to answer with questions. Come up with actual answers instead of answering questions with questions. THAT'S RELIGION FOLKS

September 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@claybigsby- I have answered every question given to me on the topic of this page. Can you show where I haven't?

September 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

Ed

What I think is interesting reading the comments is how the Atheist have turned a scientific (archaeology) into a relligious conspiracy. Al the while insisting religious people should use science. Basically the site is a scientific site that becasue the atheist on this blog don't like the findings they want to ignore. Ignoring science is what they claim the religious do but as soon as its helps the they deny science. Interesting.

I'm not saying the site is proof of biblical historic accuracy but it is imperical evidence on biblical historic accuracy. I not saying its part of the Kingdom of David but it could be. I'm not saying its proof of the existence of God, we've hamered that into the ground I think. The site is a scientific research site that has given some evidence it was of a Jewish nature. Thats what we know so far. How about the atheist show some of the open mindedness they pride themselves on and take the evidence at face value and see where it leads. Maybe nowhere but lets follow proper scientific process and let the evidence lead the way.

September 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm |

Lycidas

Well said.

September 6, 2011 at 7:12 pm |

HotAirAce

I have no problem with it's probably evidence of a Jewish settlement. I do have a problem leaping to it's "Evidence of Kingdom of David" and suggestions that it is proof for The Babble. I did do some reading about Tel Dan Stele and there is controversy over what is really written on the potshards.

September 6, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

Ed

@Hotair

I have no doubt there is controversy about the writing on the pottery. I not saying it is proof on the Kingdom of David. BUt it is evidence.. My point was not that we should state it is proof simply that we shoud continue to let the evidence be presented and see were it leads. It may turn out to be a Jewish city form David's kingdom. Or perhaps a City form a different culture. But read the posts many people are condemn it as unimportant or inaccurate simply because the seem to want it to be something else. It may be something else but the evidence has not been adequatly examined yet.

September 6, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

Kyle

This is no different than people a couple thousand years from now finding a church from Louisiana that sunk in a swamp. It only proves that the building existed and that people went there for practicing a useless ritual. Religious people look at findings like this as a validation of their beliefs. That's where the problem lies.

"The bible spoke of a building, and we've found it! That means EVERY word in the bible MUST be real!!"

Yeah, well, the bible also talks about a talking snake, a monster called leviathan, divine miracles, four horsemen of the apocalypse, and a guy that walks on water. Yet the only so-called evidence for this religion we can find is some papers and some buildings?

The way I look at it is this... the bible can be handy for figuring out a small portion of human history. A fiction novel with some bits and pieces of history thrown in. You know, like a Stephen King book perhaps.

September 6, 2011 at 7:25 pm |

Ed

I must have missed the part of the video were someone said this is proof of God. At least from many of the atheist comments it must be there. I'll watch it again.

I also have not seen the religious here claiming it is proof of God. One person said it was proof of biblical accuracy. I disagree it is evidence of bibilical accuracy but not proof. The thing is atheist often seem to remark on how religious ignore rscientific evidence but in this case the religious seem to be considering the atheist ignoring it. I find that interesting and at least a little ironic.

September 6, 2011 at 7:34 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Hotairace-"I did do some reading about Tel Dan Stele and there is controversy over what is really written on the potshards."

Nothing wrong with that. Scientific evidence should be debated and studied. I am glad someone actually looked it up and didn't just make a snap judgement like others have on here.
Not to be too picky, but the stele isn't potshards.

September 6, 2011 at 7:43 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Kyle-"This is no different than people a couple thousand years from now finding a church from Louisiana that sunk in a swamp. It only proves that the building existed and that people went there for practicing a useless ritual."

You are no different than those you think are beneath you. You was accurate up to the point where you had to give your opinion on it being useless.

Archaeology has never made a claim that it could prove faith anymore than it could prove beauty or truth. It can show how those that lived in the past felt about such topics but that's about it.

September 6, 2011 at 7:46 pm |

John Richardson

There are multiple questions that are related but not at all identical. Was there a Jewish kingdom? Was there a Jewish king named David who was the founder of a dynasty? Did this David do the quasi-supernatural things the Bible said he did? The answers to the first two can obviously be yes, while the answer to the last remains no. But it's also worth asking a further question. Beyond "David was a real person whose real exploits were recounted truthfully in the bible" vs "David was a real king of Israel whose exploits were mythologized in the bible" lies the possibility that David was a fully mythological figure made up to play a role in a pseudo-history of Israel and possibly relatable to other, prior mythological figures whose exploits were co-opted for this novel use. I consider this latter a real possibility and no mere mention of the name David as on the steles mentioned elsewhere change that. The Tel Dan stele references a king, NOT David, ostensibly from the House of David. Ok, even if this interpretation is correct (and there is some controversy), does being from the House of David make David a person, or can you be from the House of some mythological figure who was "demoted" to being a person to "get the story right" re the reigning monotheism. If I had to place a bet, I would bet that there was a real David, but his exploits in the bible are a grab bag of mythological mumbo jumbo, some taken from earlier myths, some made up anew, to serve some purpose not unlike the sheer fabrications about George Washington that were once taught as true to children.

September 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm |

Scott Owl

Religious people have no scientific proof of their gods, nor is there anything to suggest any part of any religious text to be true beyond the name of a town or some king who lived in primitive times.
Without a god, every religious text is clearly nothing but mystical nonsense, a pack of lies, and ignorantly primitive morality plays with a few proper nouns mixed in to make it sound true.
Well, that just goes to show you why religious people are so opposed to scientific facts. The facts do not support the faith, the beliefs, or even the stories. What then is left? Nothing but "hey they might have found a small Jewish settlement somewhere that proves absolutely nothing biblical other than the fact that there was a settlement in that place."
With an overwhelming lack of proof of anything supernatural in ALL scientific fields, is it any wonder that religious people look upon real facts and science as a threat?
Hey, I'm pretty open-minded where actual facts are concerned, but I am not stupid enough to read any more into these facts than what is logical and reasonable. Pottery shards are not supernatural. They prove nothing but that pottery was made at one time. The rules of evidence must be observed or else there is no point in discussing the evidence.
Thousands of years without a single shred of anything that even suggests the existence of the supernatural is pretty damning evidence that there is no god, no sin, and no need for all this idiocy.
I think religious people should be ashamed for letting this fraudulent conspiracy go on for thousands of years when they had plenty of facts right there in front of them, but extended logic and reasoning were probably pretty rare in those busy, ignorant old days.
Now we have overwhelming evidence against anything being of supernatural origin. Religious people cannot win without facts and the facts don't support them. That why they hate facts and prefer to talk in terms of mystical bullsh-t.
Dorks without a clue. Always have been and always will be no matter how much they study the lies they rely upon.

September 6, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

HotAirAce

I stand corrected – the stele is made up of inscribed stone.

September 6, 2011 at 7:58 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"The answers to the first two can obviously be yes, while the answer to the last remains no."

~Not quite. Archaeology may show that the first two questions are a yes, but archaeology cannot show that the third question is answered best by a no.

"Beyond "David was a real person whose real exploits were recounted truthfully in the bible" vs "David was a real king of Israel whose exploits were mythologized in the bible" lies the possibility that David was a fully mythological figure made up to play a role in a pseudo-history of Israel and possibly relatable to other, prior mythological figures whose exploits were co-opted for this novel use. I consider this latter a real possibility..."

~You are not alone. Many ppl have theorize this.

September 6, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Religious people have no scientific proof of their gods, nor is there anything to suggest any part of any religious text to be true beyond the name of a town or some king who lived in primitive times."

~Scot..and what is your point? Plz don't tell us you are trying again to go down the "no proof equals proof to the opposite" road. No one has really stated on here that they feel that archaeology confirms aspects of theology have they? If I missed it I am sorry.

"Without a god, every religious text is clearly nothing but mystical nonsense, a pack of lies, and ignorantly primitive morality plays with a few proper nouns mixed in to make it sound true."

~Thank you for your theological opinion.

"Well, that just goes to show you why religious people are so opposed to scientific facts. The facts do not support the faith, the beliefs, or even the stories."

~Quite a few lies in all this. First, religious ppl are no opposed to scientific facts as a whole. No more than assuming that all atheists are well versed in theology. Some scientific "facts" do support a faith. I've already cited evidence that supports certain aspects of faith but I am sure you'll ignore them since they don't go with your mindset and throw out something else unsupported currently by science.

"What then is left? Nothing but "hey they might have found a small Jewish settlement somewhere that proves absolutely nothing biblical other than the fact that there was a settlement in that place.""

~What you ignore is that with that scientific fact in place, it shuts up those that would say that the Bible is all wrong. That's all it does. What more do you want science to do?

"With an overwhelming lack of proof of anything supernatural in ALL scientific fields, is it any wonder that religious people look upon real facts and science as a threat?"

~Lack of proof does not equal proof to the contrary. I could say that you display a lack of knowledge. This would not instantly mean you are unknowledgable.

"Hey, I'm pretty open-minded where actual facts are concerned, but I am not stupid enough to read any more into these facts than what is logical and reasonable. Pottery shards are not supernatural."

~Not one person has yet said that pottery shards are supernatural. You are implying that which does not exist. And forgive me but you are putting a lot of opinion into the facts at hand.

"Thousands of years without a single shred of anything that even suggests the existence of the supernatural is pretty damning evidence that there is no god, no sin, and no need for all this idiocy."

~Another theological opinion. No facts to the contrary.

"I think religious people should be ashamed for letting this fraudulent conspiracy go on for thousands of years when they had plenty of facts right there in front of them, but extended logic and reasoning were probably pretty rare in those busy, ignorant old days."

~More opinion...no facts.

"Now we have overwhelming evidence against anything being of supernatural origin."

~What evidence? Have you yet to show that someone created the concept of God? You have not.

"Religious people cannot win without facts and the facts don't support them. That why they hate facts and prefer to talk in terms of mystical bullsh-t."

~Win? I think your motives are flawed in this discussion. And what you mean to say is that the facts at hand do not prove to you anything supernatural.

September 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm |

John Richardson

I wrote: "The answers to the first two can obviously be yes, while the answer to the last remains no."

Uncouth replied: ~Not quite. Archaeology may show that the first two questions are a yes, but archaeology cannot show that the third question is answered best by a no.

Me again: What??? What archaeology by itself can and canmot "prove" doesn't change the range of logical possibilities!!!

I wrote: "Beyond "David was a real person whose real exploits were recounted truthfully in the bible" vs "David was a real king of Israel whose exploits were mythologized in the bible" lies the possibility that David was a fully mythological figure made up to play a role in a pseudo-history of Israel and possibly relatable to other, prior mythological figures whose exploits were co-opted for this novel use. I consider this latter a real possibility..."

Uncouth replied: ~You are not alone. Many ppl have theorize this.

Indeed, I claim no originality here. I am referencing a point of view quite popular in some circles that I personally feel are trying way too hard. It's a lot easier for me to believe that there is some whiff of real historicity to most biblical figures about which much mumbo jumbo was written than to believe that ALL of this huge cast of characters are pure fabrications or gods from other religions borrowed and "demoted" to humanhood to serve the purposes of monotheism. If we are talking from, say Moses on back, yeah, I can believe we are talking pure myth. Noah on back, for sure myth. But later people with their fairly pedestrian political intrigues? I think we are likely talking a mix of history and tall tales about history. But I can't pretend to have an expert opinion.

September 6, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

Woody

"........but it is imperical (sic) evidence on biblical historic accuracy."

Ed, I assume that you mean "empirical".

Empirical (adj.)
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supports a hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

Please tell me what empirical evidence was found at this dig. I must have missed it in the video.

September 6, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Me again: What??? What archaeology by itself can and canmot "prove" doesn't change the range of logical possibilities!!!"

~Very true....but "no" is not a logical answer in this case. No is a definite answer that implied evidence of a definite nature. One might be able to say that archaeology does not support the premise and that would be accurate.

September 6, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

Kyle

Uncouth Swain

"@Kyle-"This is no different than people a couple thousand years from now finding a church from Louisiana that sunk in a swamp. It only proves that the building existed and that people went there for practicing a useless ritual."

You are no different than those you think are beneath you. You was accurate up to the point where you had to give your opinion on it being useless.

Archaeology has never made a claim that it could prove faith anymore than it could prove beauty or truth. It can show how those that lived in the past felt about such topics but that's about it."

I am 100% accurate. It is YOUR opinion that I am not. Your last statement completely misses my point where I stated that believers will use archeological finds to validate their faith despite zero evidence of the biblical claims of events that occurred in these places. Furthermore, I did not give an opinion. I stated a FACT. Religious rituals are in FACT useless. Having read and studied religion for decades, I can say with zero doubt that the three major religions of islam, christianity and judaism are complete fabrications. They are in FACT man-made belief systems with zero evidence of divinity. They are borrowed belief systems from other belief systems and so on. That alone proves that these religions are myths.

Consider that christianity borrows from Greek mythology. This in turn would mean that Greek mythology is real too, according to those of faith. In Greek mythology, the Greek gods were beings that one could see and touch. They lived atop Mt. Olympus. As we now know, and can clearly see from photos, Mt. Olympus is a desolate place. There are no structures, no homes, and certainly no gods. Therefore, logically speaking, Greek mythology is nothing more than mythology. In turn, worshiping deities that we now know not to exist becomes a useless act. Does it not? If that same religion which is now a myth is used to create another religion, then that religion too, must logically be a myth as well. Worshiping the god of that myth then too, becomes a useless act. Not opinion. FACT.

Since we know Greek mythology to be a myth, then we know that Tartarus does not exist. Tartarus is the Greek mythological "hell" for gods. Funny... but it's also in the bible! Tartarus is actually mentioned in the bible. What does that tell us? That the bible lies to us.

What about satan? In Greek mythology, the Devil is called Pan, a god who was a goat-man with horns, cloven hooves, and a pointed tail. The word "demon" is a Greek word used for Pan and his followers. Were you aware than the talking snake in Genesis is not called satan or lucifer?

My point is that christianity has taken known myths and incorporated their systems into it's own story. Therefore, the FACT of the matter, not the opinion, is that christianity too is a complete man-made fabrication, a myth. Just like the Greeks had Mt. Olympus and other real-world places to base their myth on, christianity has the same. Real-world things and places, but no god, no angels and certainly no demons. The rituals that are used to exalt this myth are in FACT, useless.

September 6, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

John Richardson

Yo, Uncouth! I don't understand why you are making this all about archaeology. I didn't even reference archaeology in my original post. But yes, it's hard to comprehend what sort of archaeological evidence there would be that would "prove" that David didn't slay Goliath. All I'm saying is that even if there is indubitable proof that there was a kingdom of David and that 'David' refers to an actual king and indeed specifically the second king of this particular kingdom, that doesn't imply that the tales told about him in the bible are true. There is a USA and George Washington really was the USA's first president, but we know that a lot that was claimed about him, mild stuff compared to biblical tall tales, were pure balderdash.

But I should also note that if the best hard evidence of this Kingdom of David are two steles and this excavation, that's pretty slim pickings for a kingdom claimed to have stretched from Egypt to the Euphrates! We have lots and lots of evidence for Egyptian pharoahs and their empires and Babylonian kings and their empires and on and on. Why are the picking so slim for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Especially in light of the Jewish penchant for honoring history, shouldn't we have artifacts galore? Or perhaps the history being honored is largely made up, much like the Old Irish Pseudo-histories? Food for thought!

September 6, 2011 at 9:16 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"I am 100% accurate. It is YOUR opinion that I am not."

~Ummm...no. Stating something as useless is an opinion.

"Your last statement completely misses my point where I stated that believers will use archeological finds to validate their faith despite zero evidence of the biblical claims of events that occurred in these places. Furthermore, I did not give an opinion. I stated a FACT. Religious rituals are in FACT useless. Having read and studied religion for decades, I can say with zero doubt that the three major religions of islam, christianity and judaism are complete fabrications."

~Still opinions because you offer no evidence. No one has made the claim yet that archaeology has proven anything spiritual. You are trying to win an argument no one has even made.

"They are in FACT man-made belief systems with zero evidence of divinity. They are borrowed belief systems from other belief systems and so on. That alone proves that these religions are myths."

~But you have not proven anything. The lack of evidence does not equal evidence to the contrary. You have not shown that Judaism has borrowed from anyone. I bet this is where you try and bring up comparissons. But be warned that showing similarities does not mean one borrowed from another.

"Consider that christianity borrows from Greek mythology."

~No it didn't.

"This in turn would mean that Greek mythology is real too, according to those of faith. In Greek mythology, the Greek gods were beings that one could see and touch. They lived atop Mt. Olympus. As we now know, and can clearly see from photos, Mt. Olympus is a desolate place. There are no structures, no homes, and certainly no gods. Therefore, logically speaking, Greek mythology is nothing more than mythology. In turn, worshiping deities that we now know not to exist becomes a useless act. Does it not? If that same religion which is now a myth is used to create another religion, then that religion too, must logically be a myth as well. Worshiping the god of that myth then too, becomes a useless act. Not opinion. FACT."

~And all this was the followup straw man. You declare that Christianity borrows from the greeks with no evidence and then trash the greeks as if that somehow trashes christianity. Sorry, but that is a fail.

"Since we know Greek mythology to be a myth, then we know that Tartarus does not exist. Tartarus is the Greek mythological "hell" for gods. Funny... but it's also in the bible! Tartarus is actually mentioned in the bible. What does that tell us? That the bible lies to us."

I found Gehenna and Hades in the original language. Took awhile to find what you was referencing. Only mentioned once in the I Peter. Of course that book was directed toward a Greek cultured background. No mention of the greek gods in there..lol.

"What about satan? In Greek mythology, the Devil is called Pan, a god who was a goat-man with horns, cloven hooves, and a pointed tail. The word "demon" is a Greek word used for Pan and his followers. Were you aware than the talking snake in Genesis is not called satan or lucifer?"

~What about Satan? Pan was not the devil in greek mythology. He was nature god....reference Banias for some archaeology. Also you are getting what middle ages christians said of Pan. Not to be mean but you are relying on Christians for your faulty info on Pan.
Well duh...the serpent of Genesis isn't ever named. Do you realize that Lucifer has nothing to do with Satan?

"My point is that christianity has taken known myths and incorporated their systems into it's own story. Therefore, the FACT of the matter, not the opinion, is that christianity too is a complete man-made fabrication, a myth. Just like the Greeks had Mt. Olympus and other real-world places to base their myth on, christianity has the same. Real-world things and places, but no god, no angels and certainly no demons. The rituals that are used to exalt this myth are in FACT, useless."

~No...you still have more opinions than facts. Here is how you can fix this....prove that it is all a "man-made fabrication". All you have to do is to tell us who created it, how, why, when and where. Plz do not forget your evidence.

September 6, 2011 at 9:26 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"I don't understand why you are making this all about archaeology."

Topic: Is Israeli archeological site biblical kingdom of David?

Mostly because the topic is archaeology.

September 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

John Richardson

@uncouth You are being willful. Even the video is not just about archaeology, but about "what it all means". They focus on what the finding may mean for the modern political debates on the legitimate size of Israel. This being the belief blog, many posters, including the lead poster for this thread (ie Ed), have tried to make it about scientific vindication of the bible's historical accuracy. My own first post in this thread was simply meant to point out that even if archaeology vindicated the historical reality of the kingdom of Israel and David far beyond what is even being claimed here, that that doesn't get to the meatier issues of what David really did or didn't do, let alone what some hypothetical god thought about any of it.

September 6, 2011 at 9:37 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"My own first post in this thread was simply meant to point out that even if archaeology vindicated the historical reality of the kingdom of Israel and David far beyond what is even being claimed here, that that doesn't get to the meatier issues of what David really did or didn't do, let alone what some hypothetical god thought about any of it."

Sorry John....I get so used to the light weights on here that I forget that you actually know what you think and have done study to back your thoughts up. You are correct that the archaeology doesn't really delve into the other "meatier" topics.
Be well...night.

September 6, 2011 at 9:42 pm |

*frank*

Many of the flea-bitten thugs back in them days who called themselves "king of kings" or "ruler of the world" or whatever were boasting from an empire the size of a large shopping mall. The name of David is famous even today just cause he threw a rock at some retard with a pituitary disorder and killed him.

September 6, 2011 at 9:45 pm |

Answer

@Uncouth

~No...you still have more opinions than facts. Here is how you can fix this....prove that it is all a "man-made fabrication". All you have to do is to tell us who created it, how, why, when and where. Plz do not forget your evidence.

Where is your side of the evidence that you are asking others on Uncouth. I see alot of "~" with a one line. "No it didn't and such" Prove your side. It's your words used against you. It's a very nice tactic that is used to go into denial. To force others to provide proof. Wherein you do not have to yourself. So in the same manner. Please provide your proof.

"If you were dealing with the insurance company on filing a claim, how would the claim's company respond to you."
This burden of proof process is what your are once again ignoring. So what have you learn really Uncouth? Not a lot about your own views that's for certain. Your attacks are just a joke.

September 6, 2011 at 11:48 pm |

Answer

Let's just pick this one:

"Consider that christianity borrows from Greek mythology."

~No it didn't.

I like that curt response. "Yes it did."

September 6, 2011 at 11:51 pm |

Answer

By the way Uncouth..

Your knowledge i have respect for... so answer one of your own kinds retort using your knowledge of archaeology.

Can archaeology / or rather / did archeology ever find a piece of any items recovered from any location around the world as being more than 10,000 years old. Direct your reply to you bible fanatic friend "Fred" who likes to hammer down the 10,000 years of his belief.

I'm guessing you're much like him, except you accepted only a small 'feeling' for science. Other areas of science in direct contradiction to your limited knowledge you would rather reject right? I would like to highlight the audacity of ones such as yourself to only use the bits of science that fall favor to your view whilst declining acceptance to most of the correlated and supported known areas throughout science. I know for fact you've stated that not all of you are like that.

Just how much of science have you accepted? How much of the science do you use to try to distort science's findings?

September 7, 2011 at 1:05 am |

Ed

@Woody,

"Ed, I assume that you mean "empirical".

Empirical (adj.)
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supports a hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

Please tell me what empirical evidence was found at this dig. I must have missed it in the video."

They found a pottery shard with writtiing the archaeologist think is a early form of hebrew that would be emperical evidence it was a hebrew settlement. The found no pig bones but sevral other animal bones. Jews don't eat pork other societies of the time did, again evidence it was a hebrew settlement. The writting mentions the house of David a jewish King and common Jewish name again evidence it is jewish settlemnt . the last is evidence that this setlement may have been part of the kingdom of David. None of this is proof positive but it is evidence it. It was observed by scientist archaeology is science not religion. It follows proper scientific rules of emperical evidence yet the atheist seem to be saying its meaningless. And you seem to be saying its not evidence at all. But it is evidence. Just because you disagree with the religion doesn't meen the evidence from the dig is false. The evidence does not prove the kingdom of David but it is evidence. It does not prove the existence of God but then I never implied it did.

I have said repeatedly lets look at the evidence with an open mind. The atheist seem to be looking at from the idea of 'How do a shoot this down?' Some of the religious seem to be saying 'see the Bible is right.' No one is saying lets see what the evidence tells us. The atheist said this doesn't prove God before any one said it did. Frankly that comes off as denying quilt before your accused. Try going into a police station sometime and annoucing you're innocent and did do anything. I suspect they will start a investigation to find out what you're saying you didn't do. Same idea her wait till some says this proves God is real before you say it doesn't.

Whether you like it or not the dig has found evidence it was a Jewish settlement. The house of David was mentionedso it may be part of the kingdom of David. There is no mention in the video of the supernatural nature of David and no evidence at the dig as far as we know so far. I doubt they will fing evidence of the supernatural, but I guess its possible. In either case there is evidnce it was a Jewish settlement. There is weaker evidence it is part of the kingdom of David. They have only uncovered about 10% of the settlement. As the uncover more the evidence will show more information. Lets wait and see what it shows before we make judgements. Lets stop make sweeping assumptions and trying to make the evidence show what we want it to show. Lets look at it with an open mind and let it show what it shows.

September 7, 2011 at 8:53 am |

Ed

@Answer

"only use the bits of science that fall favor to your view whilst declining acceptance to most of the correlated and supported known areas throughout science"

This is exactly what the atheist are doing on this blog. They are denying the evidence because they don't like the possible conclusion. There is not yet enough evidence for a proper conclusion, but the atheist on this blog are already saying it means nothing. Again let the evidence pan out. Do wat you constantly complain religious don't do and let the evidence lead you to a conclusion.

Why is this so hard for every one to try?

September 7, 2011 at 9:00 am |

John Richardson

Ed, If non-believers appear to have gotten ahead of themselves, it's because we anticipate a lot of "See! The bible has been proven correct!", as we have indeed seen in some responses from believers. But rationally, even IF there were absolutely irrefutable proof of a King David as the second king of the Kingdom of Israel, that does not by a LONG shot prove that the stories about David in the bible are even va-guely related to the truth. The fact that a few bits and pieces that are merely suggestive are the best that have been found to support belief in the existence of a Kingdom said to have spread from Egypt to the Euphrates should give one pause. In Egypt and Babylon, there is evidence galore of such grand empires, so much that there is always fear about how much will be lost to nature, war, vandals and thieves before it is properly studied. Compared to this, two steles and some pottery that may or may not reference a house of David looks pretty damn paltry to me. But by all means, yes, let's be open minded about what may yet be discovered, but let's also not claim validation for anything beyond what these fairly humble finds may or may not be able to validate.

September 7, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

Ed

@John,
I have not in any of my commnets claimed this evidence as proof of anything. It is at best evidence of a Jewsih settlement that may have been part of the Kingdom of David, or just a Jewish settlement. They have only uncovered 10% so far to the paltry finds you mention msy be all there is or the tip of the iceberg. I merely recommend we wait and see. I did comment on how many atheist seem to want to simply ignore or deny the evidence. That seem unfair since they are always claiming the religious do just that.

September 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@frank- Actually there are other more important reasons why ppl know the name David in regards to the Tanakh.

September 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Answer-"Can archaeology / or rather / did archeology ever find a piece of any items recovered from any location around the world as being more than 10,000 years old. Direct your reply to you bible fanatic friend "Fred" who likes to hammer down the 10,000 years of his belief."

Oh..quite a bit. From the cave paintings in southern France to the various "Venus" found right in what we call Israel. I always found the neanderthals found around Mt. Carmel really interesting. There is a whole bunch of archaeological info from before 10,000 years ago. Fred is welcome to his belief but I do not agree with it.

September 7, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

claybigsby

Ed you are an idiot....

"I have no doubt there is controversy about the writing on the pottery. I not saying it is proof on the Kingdom of David. BUt it is evidence."

read this link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

MORON

September 7, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

Ed

@claybigsby.
"Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. "

As I said ther is evidence at the site that it was a Jewish settlement it proably was and the it was part of the Jewish kingdom of David. However the evidence at this point is insufficient and therfore can be considered proof. As an example if a crime were commited and they found your finger prints at the scene that would be evidence that you commit the crime. Put it only proves you were at the scene not that you commited the crime see evidence it tends to prove it is ground for belief but it not necessarily sufficient to actually prove.

A more real time example you started and ened your remark with an insult to some one you don't even know. This is evidence theat you are a simple minded jerk. However I think one comment by you is insufficient to prove that you infact a simple minded jerk. So I will with hold judgement till I have more evidence. If future commits are said with a more mature and intellectual fashion I will consider this an anomaly if you continue with your current behavior you will prove your all a simple minded jerk after supplying sufficient evidence.

So you see I did use the term evidence correctly when I stated tthere is evidence at the site that is was a Jewish settlement and may have been part of the Kingdom of David. However there has not yet been enough evidence to prove or disprove either opinon.

September 7, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

Real Deal

Even if this archeology confirms the Biblical person, David, it does not add a shred of evidence for the supernatural beings and events which are rhapsodized about in the Bible. That these ancient cultures existed and believed certain myths and legends is a given. So what? Not that we shouldn't want to learn all that we can about these primitive societies and their behaviors; it's just not to be used as proof of the supernatural.

Evidence for ancient Troy has been found, and Sparta, and of course, Athens, and other places and people written about in Greek myths. That does not provide one whit of proof for the Cyclops, the Sirens, Athena, Circe, Zeus, or any of the rest of the mythical supernatural characters and happenings.

Bring on the discovery of Moses' tablets, and a way to test them for the fingerprints of "God"; or Noah's ark, with confirmatory samples of DNA from Koalas and Penguins left on it - and we'll talk.

September 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |

Uncouth Swain

I think most reasonable ppl do not expect archaeology to confirm aspects of their faith beyond what archaeology can do. It can show what has existed before but cannot really show much more than that. Science is a flawed method of understanding the world around us. It had it's uses, but it is not the final say either.

September 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |

Free

"Bring on the discovery of Moses' tablets"
Ask Indiana Jones where they are. ;-)

September 6, 2011 at 7:11 pm |

Uncouth Swain

No doubt still in Area 51. That last Indy movie stunk.

September 6, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

Kyle

People of faith foolishly believe that finding a biblical site somehow validates that their religion is real. That is an insight as to how frail people's faiths really are. In other words, they know deep down that something with all religion is wrong, but they're holding onto it by a thread.

Christians. How many of you still believe that jesus is going to return? I don't mean to be a stickler, but you're all holding your breath for nothing.

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." –Mark 9:1 (KJV)

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." –Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." –Matthew 10:23 (NIV)

You see what that is? It's jesus telling people that he's going to return in a very short time. In fact, he was supposed to return before some of his followers died as he himself stated. In case you're missing the boat here... some of the followers jesus was addressing were supposed to see jesus die, and then before their deaths, jesus would return. He never did.

Digging up religious sites proves nothing other than that people back then also believed in myths and that human evolution hasn't changed much over the past 2000 years.

September 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"People of faith foolishly believe that finding a biblical site somehow validates that their religion is real. That is an insight as to how frail people's faiths really are. In other words, they know deep down that something with all religion is wrong, but they're holding onto it by a thread."

~Incorrect. Most of those I know take what they see in archaeology and make it a part of their understanding. Just like a person that think they know the evolution of man will take a new piece of evidence from anthropology and add it to their understanding. Your opinions on what ppl of faith know or do not know is pointless and factless.

"Christians. How many of you still believe that jesus is going to return? I don't mean to be a stickler, but you're all holding your breath for nothing."

~Sounds like you have a feeling you are right. Too bad there is nothing to support it.

"You see what that is? It's jesus telling people that he's going to return in a very short time. In fact, he was supposed to return before some of his followers died as he himself stated. In case you're missing the boat here... some of the followers jesus was addressing were supposed to see jesus die, and then before their deaths, jesus would return. He never did."

~Thank you for your theological opinion. There are some with opinions that differ from yours and could be just as accurate.

"Digging up religious sites proves nothing other than that people back then also believed in myths and that human evolution hasn't changed much over the past 2000 years."

~Such a ignorant position. "Digging up" is a scientific study called archaeology. Just because you do not like some of the outcomes does not mean you can dismiss it outright. No more than those of faith can dismiss geology or anthropology outright.

September 6, 2011 at 8:00 pm |

Kyle

Uncouth Swain

First and foremost, the little squiggly lines you use to illustrate your opinions are annoying and serve zero purpose.

Secondly, I provide scripture from the bible that in FACT debunks the claims that Jesus is going to return someday. You really need to start doing some research. I'm not posting opinions. I'm posting findings from the bible itself, which believers use to makes claims with.

I'm also well aware of what archeology is. Merry Christmas. I know that may shock you, but your attempt to insult me by making it seem as though I'm an idiot for stating the words "digging up" is a tragic failure. Pardon me for not using cute little squiggly lines in every post I make. Are there any other illogical points you'd like to nitpick? No? Now it's time for me to nitpick you:

Here's a post you made:

"I think most reasonable ppl do not expect archaeology to confirm aspects of their faith beyond what archaeology can do. It can show what has existed before but cannot really show much more than that. Science is a flawed method of understanding the world around us. It had it's uses, but it is not the final say either."

"ppl" is not a word.

You also imly that science HAD it's uses, but no longer does. Incorrect. Science has far more use than religion. For example, praying to a god will not prevent global warming. It will not stop natural disasters. Praying to a god will not magically make technology appear that can one day send us to a new planet to inhabit since this one certainly isn't going to last forever. Science on the other hand can in the future (which means it still has it's uses) provide us with means of mitigating risks and perhaps one day some kind of method of continuing our species elsewhere.

Your statement about science being flawed. Well then. Religion is not? Let's examine this further.

Science is flawed because the theories we have about it are created by man. This actually means that science itself is not flawed. Humans are. Science is science. The laws of nature exist with or without us, no? This means that the laws are not flawed, rather the views we have of those laws.

The same goes for religion. However, the difference here is that there are no laws governing the supernatural because there is no evidence of the supernatural. We can see and feel the effects of gravity. We on the other hand, don't have a god floating in the sky that speaks down to us from above. Instead of scientific theory regarding religion due to lack of evidence, we are left with those of faith who claim it to be a reality based on books written thousands of years ago by people who did not have science to explain what the moon, sun and the stars were. They did not know what caused natural disasters. Science explains these things to us. We now know that god isn't causing earthquakes. Plate movements are why this happens.

Science still has more work to do. It will continue to do what religion will ALWAYS fail to do, and that is answer questions.

Now, go find someone who doesn't do their homework to pick a fight with. You'll do better.

September 6, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"First and foremost, the little squiggly lines you use to illustrate your opinions are annoying and serve zero purpose."

~Don't care if you care for it or not. Helps separate my quoting you from what I am saying.

"Secondly, I provide scripture from the bible that in FACT debunks the claims that Jesus is going to return someday. You really need to start doing some research. I'm not posting opinions. I'm posting findings from the bible itself, which believers use to makes claims with."

~No...you did not debunk anything. Like many others, you quoted the Bible and gave your theological opinion on it. There are others that would read the very same text and give a different opinion.

"I'm also well aware of what archeology is. Merry Christmas. I know that may shock you, but your attempt to insult me by making it seem as though I'm an idiot for stating the words "digging up" is a tragic failure."

~When you claim to know something yet show nothing of that knowledge...fogive me but the fault lies with you.

"You also imly that science HAD it's uses, but no longer does. Incorrect. Science has far more use than religion."

~No..didn't say anything of the sort. Science serves it's purpose for what it is designed to do. Nothing more. As for which is more useful...that is a matter of opinion.

"For example, praying to a god will not prevent global warming. It will not stop natural disasters. Praying to a god will not magically make technology appear that can one day send us to a new planet to inhabit since this one certainly isn't going to last forever. Science on the other hand can in the future (which means it still has it's uses) provide us with means of mitigating risks and perhaps one day some kind of method of continuing our species elsewhere."

~Hmmm, straw men everywhere.
Science is a tool...nothing more. Has anyone said otherwise?

"Your statement about science being flawed. Well then. Religion is not? Let's examine this further."

~You are assuming again. Of course religion is flawed...just as science is. I have never said otherwise.

"Science still has more work to do. It will continue to do what religion will ALWAYS fail to do, and that is answer questions."

~Depends on what questions you are asking. There are questions that cannot be answered by science that are better debated about in the realm of theology. Would you disagree?

"Now, go find someone who doesn't do their homework to pick a fight with. You'll do better."

~I am writing to them right now and still not impressed.

September 6, 2011 at 9:37 pm |

Jim

And how many times is it now that they've 'found' Noah's Ark?

September 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm |

Uncouth Swain

Don't you mean Utnapishtim's Ark?

September 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

Kyle

Exactly.

September 6, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

Peace2All

As far as the video related, there were very little, if anything that was pointing to this archaeological finding to be the 'kingdom of David' from the Bible.

So far... it is just a very ancient finding. Unless, someone knows or has found something else on this...?

Peace...

September 6, 2011 at 5:53 pm |

Kyle

Perhaps it belonged to the kingdom of david. It still doesn't provide evidence of the sky-hostess mythbeast they call "god."

September 6, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

Peace2All

@Kyle

Of course. I'm assuming by your response to me that you haven't seen my postings regarding these topics...?

Peace...

September 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

Kyle

It was merely an addition : )

September 6, 2011 at 9:17 pm |

*frank*

David was a jerk.

September 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

Uncouth Swain

Hey..don't be so frank.

September 6, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

*frank*

shirley you jest

September 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm |

Uncouth Swain

Don't call me Shirley!

September 6, 2011 at 8:02 pm |

Alfonzo Muchanzo

well well well, more evidence that what the Bible says is accurate and factually correct (when it's meant to be taken literally). Yet no matter what they find or what it proves, the scoffers will be out denouncing Christianity and the Bible, claiming they know everything. Open your eyes people! As much as you claim to be open minded, the truth is that you will only believe in your own righteousness and selfishness. We are all selfish and sinful, thus our need for a saviour, which was fulfilled by Jesus :)

May God have mercy on us all.

September 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm |

HotAirAce

And the evidence was? 1) no pig bones, 2) a 3,000 year olive pit and 3) a potshard that *might* have inscriptions of an early form of Hebrew. I thought I missed the "King David Lived Here!" sign so watched the video again – sorry, it's not there.

September 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

USmellLikePee

Count Dracula was also a real historical figure from history. Does that mean you believe in vampires?

September 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm |

Answer

The wide scope word "everything". I like that indoctrinated view you religious people paint out. It really brings out the fairy tale madness that you have shown here.

"more evidence that what the Bible says is accurate and factually correct " Look at your own sentence and tell yourself that you did not just say the bible knows everything. You like to voice your displeasure of the other side and say "Look they think they know everything", and yet you claim your own book knows everything already. That makes us even right?

I love the laughs you nutjobs have to offer. For real though .. are you going to use real science? Or that fake Christian Science hoobob? If you find a deteriorated body .. are you going to use genetics and track down lineage? Or just pray for your conclusion that you have real factual evidence once again?

September 6, 2011 at 5:56 pm |

Peace2All

@Alfonzo Muchanzo

I'm with -HotAirAce in his response. Also, I posted my original above basically stating the same things.

What evidence are you speaking of specifically...?

Peace...

September 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

Free

In this case, size matters. Nobody thinks that there weren't any Jews around in the area , but are we talking of just one town in a mighty empire, or just one small Jewish town? If all there was of David's 'Kingdom' is one small town of maybe a couple hundred people then the folks who wrote the Bible embellished more than a tad, right?

September 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Free- many archaeologists feel that the Kingdom of Israel, and later the southern kingdom of Judah and northern kingdom of Israel, were never "solid" in a sense. But that they had spots within their borders that were outside their control. Think of it the way Bosnia used to be back in the 90's. There were pockest of Sebs in places, Bosnians....in truth the nation was like swiss cheese. The ancient nation of Israel could have been like that. One town could have been 100% behind the House of David while across the valley there could have been a semi-independant city-state of sorts.

September 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

USmellLikePee

And you do know that the proof of burden is upon the believer, right? There is no need to dispprove a negative. Gotta laugh at people who still grasp at straws by trying to shift that burden upon non-believers.

September 6, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

Free

Uncouth Swain
All that I've read of the archeology if Israel so far seems to indicate that David was the likely cut off historically, with everything in the Biblical narrative before that not being supported by the evidence. Even then, the 'Kingdoms' of ancient Israel and Judah were pretty small potatos compared to actual kingdoms in the region. The original temple to YHWH might have been the size of an average small town church from a hundred years ago, about 79' x 30' x 46' high. On the plus side, if the Bible writers were really that into exaggeration then there is hope that the accounts of genocide were actually just BS as well.

September 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Free- There have been some archaeology that support the House of David existing. The Tel Dan Stele refers to the House of David. It also seems to reference members of the House of David. Now granted, the kings listed could just say they are David's descendants but one cannot dimiss the possibility that they were.

Totally agree on what you said about the two nations. They were speed bumps to the surrounding nations. Archaeology also shows that they did not have a far spread effect upon the region. In fact, the other powers of the region had more of a cultural impact on them. There have been numerous bullae found that shows Egyptian writing on them when Egypt was no longer directly controlling them.

As for the Temple of God, it can also be compared to other religious temples in the region. I think lachish had a temple of sorts that was similar to that of the Temple of God.

The Biblical writers were like anyone else writing history from the limited source of their own experiences...they got some things right and other things....not so right.

September 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm |

Kyle

The bible also said that jesus would return within the same generation as his followers who were alive at the same time.

I guess that means the bible lied. You know... about salvation and the whole jesus being god part.

September 6, 2011 at 7:34 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Kyle- I think you are getting archaeology mixed up with theology.

September 6, 2011 at 7:40 pm |

Kyle

Uncouth Swain

I think you missed the part where the original poster mentioned the bible.

You can comment on my every post, but you're not doing well for yourself. You drone on about a lot of trash, but so far I haven't seen you make any good points.

September 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

Uncouth Swain

It hardly matters what you think Kyle.

September 6, 2011 at 9:38 pm |

Free

Uncouth Swain
Like I said, nobody disputes that Jews have lived in the land for a very long time. It's just the scale of it all that people seem to have inflated in their imaginations. Israel is only about the size of New Jersey, or Sicily. Big apples to simple shepherd folk, but very ting apples to the actual kingdoms of the area. Like you said, just a 'speed bump.'

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

Anon

They'll find evidence that shows that ancient Israelites were never part of Egyptian slavery.

September 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

Scott Owl

They'll find a lack of evidence? Yet that would not be conclusive. Don't worry, the nonsense is being debunked daily with every archeological investigation by hopeful religitards.
But facts don't stand in their way, do they? Nope.

September 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Scott Owl- You might want to let go of your preconceived notions and do a bit of study. Might I recommend the Biblical Archaeology Review.

September 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm |

Scott Owl

If we were to take all the scientific evidence, including the actual archeological evidence, into court, Christians would lose every time. There is no proof of any god, any miracle, and no proof of anyone named Jesus having lived.
Without any proof, it doesn't matter what branch of science is used. There remains a definite lack of real proof.
But please don't try to bring up a "biblical archeology" group as being an honest resource for real facts.
I would have more confidence in scientists who did not have a personal religious agenda behind their "findings".
But too many people are suckers for that stuff. Like you, I imagine. Suckers who cannot understand the idea of objective scientific evidence. You dorks are everywhere.

September 6, 2011 at 6:22 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"If we were to take all the scientific evidence, including the actual archeological evidence, into court, Christians would lose every time."

~That is a broad and factless opinion. I would doubt that you have done any study in the field of archaeology and are just assuming it supports what you feel you know.

"There is no proof of any god, any miracle, and no proof of anyone named Jesus having lived."

~Ah...clever. Ok..not really. You went from the broad stance of the entire Bible/Torah and now are cherrypicking from it to support your factless claims. You wouldn't be trying to say that no evidence is evidence for something are you? I mean, that would be an elementary mistake in debate. I guess that a religion was founded 2,000 years ago (with writings as early as the 1st century CE) claiming there was a Jesus counts as nothing to you? If you say yes, then plz show the evidence YOU have that the figure known as Jesus was a created being. Plz cite who created him, how, why and where. Plz don't forget your physical evidence.

"Without any proof, it doesn't matter what branch of science is used. There remains a definite lack of real proof."

~I shouldn't have to tell you that the lack of proof doesn't equal proof to the contrary. Hey...are you going to go an deny that Socrates existed next?

"But please don't try to bring up a "biblical archeology" group as being an honest resource for real facts."

~Actually I brought up archaeology. Do you have a problem with that scientific study?

"I would have more confidence in scientists who did not have a personal religious agenda behind their "findings"."

~Many archaeologists don't. It seems you know very little about the archaeologists that work in the Near East.

"But too many people are suckers for that stuff. Like you, I imagine. Suckers who cannot understand the idea of objective scientific evidence. You dorks are everywhere."

~Ah...painting again with a broad brush are we? If ignorace and prejudice is what keeps you going...feel free to continue. It is entertaining.

September 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm |

USmellLikePee

A lot of talk but still no proof that god exists. SO = 1 US = 0

September 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"A lot of talk but still no proof that god exists. SO = 1 US = 0"

Us vs them mentaility. Welcome to junior high eh?

The topic is archaeology isn't it?
But to clarify your small mind, no one has proven the alternative to "god exists". You haven't yet....but yet you claim some kind of victory. You are odd sort of person. But I'll give you a chance. Since you do not feel that God exists...you must feel the concept of God was created. So plz tell us who created the concept, where, why, how and when. Plz cite your information.
Good luck ;)

September 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |

Scott Owl

So instead of facing my arguments squarely, you throw up a bunch of deliberate misunderstandings, misquotes, and misdirection as a smokescreen. Doesn't work with me. Maybe you might fool a little kid with that sort of nonsense, but I can see right through your very weak and disjointed response.
When you have proof of your god, then you'd have something worth saying. But you don't and never will because your god does not exist. All you have is lies and more lies.
Yes, dorks like you are everywhere.

September 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"When you have proof of your god, then you'd have something worth saying. But you don't and never will because your god does not exist. All you have is lies and more lies.
Yes, dorks like you are everywhere."

Calm down child. You might not have noted but I have yet to declare any connection to any faith. But thank you for making more assumptions. Just because you do not understand reason does not mean you need to lash out. The topic is simple..it's archaeology. You on the other hand want to change the topic. You said that there is no God. Fine, I ask you to prove what you are saying.
Of course I am not saying to prove a negative, that is the lazy person's way out of the argument. Ppl like that think they don't have to prove anything which is of course wrong. You say there is no God. That must mean you feel the concept of God was made up. I merely asked for you to prove it.
Either you can...good for you. Or you can't...eh, so what.

As for the main topic, plz go and study some Near Eastern archaeology. A little background on this topic would help you.

September 6, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

Scott Owl

Anyone who starts calling people "child" is obviously having issues.
Too bad you can't really face the truth. Oh, well. Just par for the course when dealing with religious people.

September 6, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Anyone who starts calling people "child" is obviously having issues."

~Would those be the same ppl that showhow mature they are by first calling others dorks? ;)

"Too bad you can't really face the truth. Oh, well. Just par for the course when dealing with religious people."

~You have yet to show any truth. You have given only opinions as if your opinions equal fact. Sadly..they do not.

September 6, 2011 at 8:22 pm |

Answer

The better question is "will these religious nutcases use real science to support their findings?"

September 6, 2011 at 4:52 pm |

Answer

If these remains are of David the Carpenter.. that would be hilarious.

So which David (last name) are they hoping and praying for – to convince themselves that the bible is correct anyways?

September 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

USmellLikePee

David Carpenter? *hums 'We've only just begun'*

September 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

Peace2All

@USmellLikePee

I think it was *Richard, wasn't it...? (Carpenter)

Peace...

September 6, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

BG

Gotta love those bootleg CD's.

September 6, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

Scott Owl

Gotta love anyone who goes around with the name "Usmelllikepee", too. I think they've got pee stuck in their nose.

September 6, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Answer- You do realize that archaeolgy is a scientific study right?

September 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Answer- You might also want to research a little on the Tel Dan Stele while you are at it.

September 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm |

Answer

Of course.

Now get on with carbon dating. How do you suppose that they are going to establish the premise of dating to their said time line? The word 'supposed' is akin to I believe it is what I want to think it should be. So given that numerous attempt by religion to take down accepted dating techniques, I wonder which technology they would now fully support.? That's the criteria. Religion has always played the denial game, only time they won't play the game is to their benefit. So it's a toss of their belief system when it's all said and done.

September 6, 2011 at 6:15 pm |

Answer

No thanks I don't care to read it. Just feel free to plaster your version of what it means to you.

September 6, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Now get on with carbon dating."

~You do realize that carbon dating is not 100% reliable right? Not to mention that one cannot carbon date such things like rock or pottery that makes up a great deal of Near Eastern Archaeology.

"How do you suppose that they are going to establish the premise of dating to their said time line?"

~I would suppose that they would break down the strata of Earth and use the layers as they fall to determine a timeframe with what they find. As you probably do not know, there is a scientific method of going through the strata of Earth to measure time. This technique is used in other sciences like geology.
Another method is use of comparative study on such things like ostracons or pottery designs. This can also add a more definitive timeframe.

"The word 'supposed' is akin to I believe it is what I want to think it should be. So given that numerous attempt by religion to take down accepted dating techniques, I wonder which technology they would now fully support.?"

~Archaeology is a science and does not rely upon religion to dictate how it should behave. Unlike your foolish notions, there are not absolutes and not all ppl of a faith disregards science and technology.

"That's the criteria. Religion has always played the denial game, only time they won't play the game is to their benefit. So it's a toss of their belief system when it's all said and done.""

~Incorrect. All of what you said is factless opinions. Anyone can play your game.

September 6, 2011 at 6:27 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"No thanks I don't care to read it. Just feel free to plaster your version of what it means to you."

~Figures...another person that isn't really here to learn anything. You just want to rely on what you feel is real and do no real thinking on your own.

September 6, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

Scott Owl

Looks like more denial, more lies, and more lame excuses with plenty of ad hominem thrown in to show us all how foolish and weak-minded someone can be even with a good vocabulary.
I suggest you look up carbon-dating a little closer. You might discover something like real facts you can use instead of your Cheney-wannabe bag of sleazy tricks, dork.

September 6, 2011 at 7:05 pm |

Uncouth Swain

"Looks like more denial,"

~What have I denied?

"more lies"

~What lies have I spoken?

"and more lame excuses with plenty of ad hominem thrown in to show us all how foolish and weak-minded someone can be even with a good vocabulary."

~what excuses have I given or even ad hominem? Plz note that you personally attacked me..so unless you want to become a hypocrite on here...you might want to drop it. With what I have stated, I will support my statement that you aren't here to learn because you refuse to actually go and reference any info given to you.

"I suggest you look up carbon-dating a little closer. You might discover something like real facts you can use instead of your Cheney-wannabe bag of sleazy tricks, dork."

~Lol...cute try to incorporate politics in this. An epic fail but still amusing. I am quite familiar with carbon dating and I stand by my statement that you cannot carbon date rocks and pottery. Not to mention that it is not 100% accurate. Is there a specific problem you have with my statement?

September 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

Scott Owl

I suppose you feel proud of acting sleazy like Cheney. Well, it must really suck to be you, is all I can say........

September 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm |

Uncouth Swain

@Scott- Thank you for ignoring my questions. It shows just where you fit in this discussion.

“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.

The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

September 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm |

Uncouth Swain

I think you need to stop copy/pasting and do a bit of research. Try the Merneptah Stele for starters.

September 6, 2011 at 6:07 pm |

Reality

"However, Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Archaeology Faculty at the University of Tel Aviv, asserts that there is no evidence in the archaeological record that Israel was a powerful force, whether at the time of the stele's creation or at any other time during that general period. In his article "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho", appearing in Ha'aretz (29 October 1999), he calls the mention of Israel on the stele a reference to a "population group" writing:

"The term "Israel" was given to one of the population groups that resided in Canaan toward the end of the Late Bronze Age, apparently in the central hill region, in the area where the Kingdom of Israel would later be established..."[21
========================================================================================

September 6, 2011 at 11:30 pm |

Glepe

In Reality, Swain was pwned.

September 7, 2011 at 1:09 am |

Uncouth Swain

@Glepe- In what way? I agree that the Kingdom of Israel was never a powerful force. But of course I am agreeing with Prof. Ze'ev Herzog who actually has a brain. Unlike certain others who just copy/paste or declare some kind of victory where there is none.

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.